Landscape: I recently read a reference to Scott Kelby's contention that a landscape must have a clear subject. I often ignore that professional opinion, especially when I can find...

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I recently read a reference to Scott Kelby's contention that a landscape must have a clear subject. I often ignore that professional opinion, especially when I can find layers of interest comprising different elements.

One (of many) was my foggy cow pasture and here I feel is another.

1. Do you consider the building to be the subject? Why or why not?

2. For the sharp-eyed, do you see any technical issues? I did one major "thing" and one smaller.

3. This version is purposefully gentle as to saturation, contrast etc. I want to explore how far I can take it, and where, and if you are interested in sharing ideas, I'd be grateful for your edits!

One last question: does anyone else have an issue with their mouse pointer jumping when attempting to set the control point for cloning? Why would that happen? Cheap mouse?

(Download)

DNG is below, if you'd like to use it. I might have been too aggressive in trying to even out the exposure initially.
Attached file:
(Download)

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

No, for me it’s just an element in the scene.

I don’t really see major or smaller so a good result. There is something blue left of the road across from the first tree shadow. Some minor haloing but not a deal breaker.

Not sure about your mouse issue as I use a waccom….

All in all a pleasant shot.

Dave Chinn

Linda From Maine wrote:

I recently read a reference to Scott Kelby's conte... (show quote)

Linda, a lovely scene it is, and nicely captured !!! I agree with you, ignore that professional opinion. We all have different visions and IMO, one is no better than the next, just different. To me, this image may have two subjects linked into one. If that makes sense. One subject being the church, while being somewhat overpowered by the beautiful mountains. I don't have a why or why not, its just my visual perspective, so to speak. I do like the overall appearance of this image. However, I would like to see a different perspective of say down on the road and leading to the church with the mountains as a secondary focal point. I may attempt an edit but haven't as of yet have a vision to where I would want to go with it. I took another look at your 'Farm scene in clearing fog' while I still have the same opinion of it as well. Can't help you with mouse issues, maybe batteries? I may return with an edit because the pinball pee brain is starting to kick in. Again, a lovely image !!!
Dave

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Frank2013 wrote:

No, for me it’s just an element in the scene.

I don’t really see major or smaller so a good result. There is something blue left of the road across from the first tree shadow. Some minor haloing but not a deal breaker.

Not sure about your mouse issue as I use a waccom….

All in all a pleasant shot.

Thanks so much for your time and clear sight, Frank!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Dave Chinn wrote:

Linda, a lovely scene it is, and nicely captured !... (show quote)

Thanks so much, Dave. The first time I passed this site I was very drawn to the smallness of the church against the open landscape and mountains (it's actually a grange hall, I discovered two years later, though seems like must have been a church originally).

I would really like to do a perspective such as you suggested, but the land rises more than it looks, so from the church itself you can't see the mountain. The other limit to this area is massive power lines and towers slashing through the foreground (which I've stretched and cloned and composed outta here).

Feel free to come back and edit anytime

I just saw your inspired interpretation of NJ's empty table in Rome!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Scott Kelby may feel the need for an easily identified main subject but it's not something I share, and I suspect that I'm far from being alone. Landscapes by their panoramic nature typically take in a variety of subjects and there is no need to insist that one of them should be identified as the main subject. As a general rule I would say that landscapes benefit from the inclusion of subjects (plural), but I wouldn't want to get hung up on having to identify one of them as the main subject.

Sometimes the main subject can be hidden in plain sight. For example, in your shot I would suggest that the distant mountains are the main subject because without them the shot would be a non-descript capture of some unexceptional countryside. Without the mountains the building would become the main subject, but only by default.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

R.G. wrote:

Scott Kelby may feel the need for an easily identi... (show quote)

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments and viewpoint, R.G.!

Snap Shot Loc: California

Linda, that's one hell of an improvement! Few could do any better! Well done!

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Linda From Maine wrote:

I recently read a reference to Scott Kelby's conte... (show quote)

This is a lovely landscape photo.
1. I don't consider that building to be the subject. Instead, I see it as a foreground element. As such, it does serve a very important role in keeping some interest in the foreground.
2. I did not notice any technical issues.
3. I think you were trying to capture a scene that does not emphasize drama in the sky or the mountains. This scene is more bucolic to me than dramatic. I do like the clouds and the snow on the mountains. You made good decisions in the use of contrast and sharpness. Well done.
4. If I don't use a Wacom tablet for editing, I use a trackball instead of a mouse. Don't know why you would be having those issues.
Erich

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Snap Shot wrote:

Linda, that's one hell of an improvement! Few could do any better! Well done!

It took me a minute to realize you must have peeked at the dng file

Thank you, Bill!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

ebrunner wrote:

This is a lovely landscape photo. br 1. I don't ... (show quote)

Thanks so much for your concise and ordered response, Erich! I'm very grateful for your time and interest. After I posted this, I was trying to find info on Kelby's comment + trying to locate in UHH who had made the reference. Didn't succeed on either quest; however, the "foreground, middle ground, and distance" is almost always covered in articles.

As I mentioned, I do very much enjoy layers of stuff when it's available

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Linda From Maine wrote:

I recently read a reference to Scott Kelby's conte... (show quote)

I think a of a landscape as a picture of land, not of the specific items set upon it though those items form some of the puzzle pieces of the landscape image. So I seldom think the mountain or the church or the barn or the tree is the subject. In this one, the scene is the subject - old building set into a valley beneath the mountains on a day with pleasant but undramatic skies. I did look at the dng and you de-wired that thing pretty seriously. I'd be tempted to get rid of the rest of them too, but you tended to the most distracting ones. I think you're right not to wring more drama out of it. The drama is the mountains, not the weather. It works.

Yes, my mouse jumps. It has since I switched to a wireless one, and it is usually because something it doesn't like is too close to it - cell phone or some other electronic device.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

minniev wrote:

I think a of a landscape as a picture of land, not... (show quote)

Thanks so much for your feedback, Minnie. Your explanation of what a landscape image is to you is very helpful. I think I'm leaning towards keeping the scene at the somewhat pastoral feel that it is currently. Practically straight out of camera

Very interesting about the competing electronic devices. I don't have that issue, but I do have a cheap (wired) mouse. It's only a problem with the clone tool; otherwise I'd have done something about it by now

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

It's and old argument, that most often, in my experience, comes down to the dichotomy of the conceptual / emotional subject (solitude, magesty, natural relationships, contrasts, desolation, spiritual, peacefulness,etc...) versus a material/objective subject (mountain, river, road, building, gorges, hills, forest, sky features, etc) as the center of interest.

My opinion and practice is much akin to Linda's consideration of the layered effect...I expect the impact of a landscape to be woven of various layers of perception ... involving both the material and emotional.

With regard to the posted landscape: how would the impact differ if the building were a rustic barn rather than a bright, white church?

No answers, just questions.

Dave

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Uuglypher wrote:

It's and old argument, that most often, in my expe... (show quote)

Eloquently stated opinions and fascinating question regarding this photo specifically. I'm very grateful for your participation, Dave!